Nat Hentoff: "I am finally scared of a White House administration"

[Toro]

First, a government health care program to cover 10% of the population, next frying Jews in ovens.

When will the madness end?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I answered, "What makes the decision any of your business?"

 

[rightwinger]

I answered, "What makes the decision any of your business?"

And yet you seem to question why this process takes place at all? Your fearmongering implies that government run "death panels" will decide who will receive medical care. I have pointed out in numerous posts that these decisions are made every day for the elderly. A 94 year old does not qualify for a heart transplant.

What makes the decision my business??
I have elderly parents, my father has a heart condition. Insurance companies will make decisions on what procedures he can receive and which he can't. Someday, a "death panel" will make the same decisions for me.
It is everyones business

 

[paperview]

Nat Hentoff was FOR the Iraq war, was against Clinton, is pro-life, a Cato Institute member, against Obama... Not quite a liberal on many issues.

"Despite what are generally considered liberal views on domestic policy and civil liberties, starting in the 1980s Hentoff articulated positions opposed to abortion, voluntary euthanasia and the selective medical treatment of severely disabled infants....Hentoff has sardonically described himself as "a member of the Proud and Ancient Order of Stiff-Necked Jewish Atheists"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I answered, "What makes the decision any of your business?"

And yet you seem to question why this process takes place at all? Your fearmongering implies that government run "death panels" will decide who will receive medical care. I have pointed out in numerous posts that these decisions are made every day for the elderly. A 94 year old does not qualify for a heart transplant.

What makes the decision my business??
I have elderly parents, my father has a heart condition. Insurance companies will make decisions on what procedures he can receive and which he can't. Someday, a "death panel" will make the same decisions for me.
It is everyones business

No offense, but your parents aren't any of my business.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I answered, "What makes the decision any of your business?"

And yet you seem to question why this process takes place at all? Your fearmongering implies that government run "death panels" will decide who will receive medical care. I have pointed out in numerous posts that these decisions are made every day for the elderly. A 94 year old does not qualify for a heart transplant.

What makes the decision my business??
I have elderly parents, my father has a heart condition. Insurance companies will make decisions on what procedures he can receive and which he can't. Someday, a "death panel" will make the same decisions for me.
It is everyones business

Today a 94 year old does not qualify, there was a time in my lifetime when NO ONE had a heath transplant!

Think of it! That's relatively recently

 

[rightwinger]

I answered, "What makes the decision any of your business?"

And yet you seem to question why this process takes place at all? Your fearmongering implies that government run "death panels" will decide who will receive medical care. I have pointed out in numerous posts that these decisions are made every day for the elderly. A 94 year old does not qualify for a heart transplant.

What makes the decision my business??
I have elderly parents, my father has a heart condition. Insurance companies will make decisions on what procedures he can receive and which he can't. Someday, a "death panel" will make the same decisions for me.
It is everyones business

Today a 94 year old does not qualify, there was a time in my lifetime when NO ONE had a heath transplant!

Think of it! That's relatively recently

You are still squirming and ducking Frank.

I asked you a simple question based on the premise for your thread. How do you think decisions on which medical procedures are funded should be made? How should the "Death Panels" do their job?

By the way, heart transplants have been around since the sixties. No longer considered a "newfangled procedure"

 

[paperview]

His next answer a question with a question is coming up!

 

[Tech_Esq]

Its an issue worth discussing.

Health care costs are escallating. We can't afford to continue dumping our declining healthcare dollars into unnecessary procedures or procedures that have little hope of succeeding. Currently, your insurance company decides whether you will receive funds to receive a potentially life saving procedure. That company has a fiduciary obligation to its stockholders and is not primarilly concerned with the well being of the patient.
Republicans can rail about this process, as well as end of life councilling being included in health care reform. But can we really ignore the fact that this process will take place whether it is from public or private healthcare?

Right. I'm fairly pro-death myself. If death is an option, I'm pretty much always in favor of it. You wanna commit suicide, I have no problems, abortion (as long as you don't make me pay for it, go ahead), euthenasia, sure, death penalty, I'm a fan.

This is just one more way to off people. I'm in favor of it. Save some costs. After all, every life ends in death. Right?

You are incorrect about unnecessary procedures being prevented though. There has been no mention of tort reform, so defensive medicine will still need to be practiced, but Doctors will have little hope of winning their cases as national standards are imposed by the new board. This just means fewer doctors, so no big deal. Fewer doctors mean more death and as already establish, I'm a pro-death guy so that OK with me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I answered, "What makes the decision any of your business?"

And yet you seem to question why this process takes place at all? Your fearmongering implies that government run "death panels" will decide who will receive medical care. I have pointed out in numerous posts that these decisions are made every day for the elderly. A 94 year old does not qualify for a heart transplant.

What makes the decision my business??
I have elderly parents, my father has a heart condition. Insurance companies will make decisions on what procedures he can receive and which he can't. Someday, a "death panel" will make the same decisions for me.
It is everyones business

Not in the America I know.

Discussed just today on a talk show, a women has an elerly mother, who at the age of 100 required a pacemaker.

After the daughter sought this procedure and was turned down by several doctors, their own decision, not a bureaucrats- a doctor performed the operation.

The woman is 105 today.

The soundbyte use was the daughter discussing the mother with President Obama.

The daughter was telling the President about how zestful her mother was, but the President said, we couldn't use such 'subjectivity' in decisions about allowing such a procedure for a 100-year old, we'd have to have some kind of regulation.

Allow?

If the citizen has the money, and a doctor who will perform the procedure, it is neither your decision, nor his.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U-dQfb8WQvo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U-dQfb8WQvo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[rightwinger]

I answered, "What makes the decision any of your business?"

And yet you seem to question why this process takes place at all? Your fearmongering implies that government run "death panels" will decide who will receive medical care. I have pointed out in numerous posts that these decisions are made every day for the elderly. A 94 year old does not qualify for a heart transplant.

What makes the decision my business??
I have elderly parents, my father has a heart condition. Insurance companies will make decisions on what procedures he can receive and which he can't. Someday, a "death panel" will make the same decisions for me.
It is everyones business

Not in the America I know.

Discussed just today on a talk show, a women has an elerly mother, who at the age of 100 required a pacemaker.

After the daughter sought this procedure and was turned down by several doctors, their own decision, not a bureaucrats- a doctor performed the operation.

The woman is 105 today.

The soundbyte use was the daughter discussing the mother with President Obama.

The daughter was telling the President about how zestful her mother was, but the President said, we couldn't use such 'subjectivity' in decisions about allowing such a procedure for a 100-year old, we'd have to have some kind of regulation.

Allow?

If the citizen has the money, and a doctor who will perform the procedure, it is neither your decision, nor his.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U-dQfb8WQvo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U-dQfb8WQvo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

If you are 100 and have the money to pay for your own pacemaker then nobody is stopping you. However, when you ask insurance to pay for it and it has minimal probability of significantly extending your life, the cost needs to be questioned.
Healthcare is not cheap and is escallating daily. There still needs to be proper management

 

[PoliticalChic]

And yet you seem to question why this process takes place at all? Your fearmongering implies that government run "death panels" will decide who will receive medical care. I have pointed out in numerous posts that these decisions are made every day for the elderly. A 94 year old does not qualify for a heart transplant.

What makes the decision my business??
I have elderly parents, my father has a heart condition. Insurance companies will make decisions on what procedures he can receive and which he can't. Someday, a "death panel" will make the same decisions for me.
It is everyones business

Not in the America I know.

Discussed just today on a talk show, a women has an elerly mother, who at the age of 100 required a pacemaker.

After the daughter sought this procedure and was turned down by several doctors, their own decision, not a bureaucrats- a doctor performed the operation.

The woman is 105 today.

The soundbyte use was the daughter discussing the mother with President Obama.

The daughter was telling the President about how zestful her mother was, but the President said, we couldn't use such 'subjectivity' in decisions about allowing such a procedure for a 100-year old, we'd have to have some kind of regulation.

Allow?

If the citizen has the money, and a doctor who will perform the procedure, it is neither your decision, nor his.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U-dQfb8WQvo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U-dQfb8WQvo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

If you are 100 and have the money to pay for your own pacemaker then nobody is stopping you. However, when you ask insurance to pay for it and it has minimal probability of significantly extending your life, the cost needs to be questioned.
Healthcare is not cheap and is escallating daily. There still needs to be proper management

You are avoiding the point.

Under the Obamunist plan, will there be some bureaucrat panel that passes judgement on the efficacy or costs of implementation?

"In the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases."
Defend Your Health Care

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC Bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.

PG 624 "Quality" measures shall be designed to assess outcomes and functional status of patients.

PG 624 "Quality" measures shall be designed to profile you including race, age, gender, place of residence, etc.

Pg 632 Lines 14-25 The Government may implement any "Quality measure" of health care services as they see fit.

PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed "Quality Measures" for Physician Services and Dialysis Services.

 

[rightwinger]

Under the Obamunist plan, will there be some bureaucrat panel that passes judgement on the efficacy or costs of implementation?

You will have that in any health plan. We have insurance company bureaucrats deciding that as we speak.

If someone has terminal cancer, we do not pay for a hip replacement
If you are 100, we do not pay for that heart transplant

Even worse, if you are not insured or underinsured.........you are screwed

 

[txlonghorn]

Its an issue worth discussing.

Health care costs are escallating. We can't afford to continue dumping our declining healthcare dollars into unnecessary procedures or procedures that have little hope of succeeding. Currently, your insurance company decides whether you will receive funds to receive a potentially life saving procedure. That company has a fiduciary obligation to its stockholders and is not primarilly concerned with the well being of the patient.
Republicans can rail about this process, as well as end of life councilling being included in health care reform. But can we really ignore the fact that this process will take place whether it is from public or private healthcare?

I think the difference is that this government involvement will not change anything where the private insurance is concerned. But it will minimize the medical industry and cost the taxpayer more. Any government controlled program will HAVE to reduce the number of providers in order to maintain regulation. Otherwise, it's not manageable. Public Option healthcare has already been dumped in the past. It's too limited. Even though it offers coverage to the uncovered, it doesn't offer much more than basic service coverage. That has already been discussed and came up again last week when the public option was rumored to be going away. Personally, I don't think it has really. I think it was a ploy to get the town hall meetings to settle a bit. Congress may STILL push it through if they have the numbers and it would seem they do.

I don't know about all this "death panel" crap. I do think that the public option will not be able to offer some of the major coverage services that terminal patients need. Private insurer's will ALWAYS be the bad guy. It's greed and lack of concern on their part. On that, we agree.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Under the Obamunist plan, will there be some bureaucrat panel that passes judgement on the efficacy or costs of implementation?

You will have that in any health plan. We have insurance company bureaucrats deciding that as we speak.

If someone has terminal cancer, we do not pay for a hip replacement
If you are 100, we do not pay for that heart transplant

Even worse, if you are not insured or underinsured.........you are screwed

Absolutely untrue.

Try to use language with more precision.

Currently there is no bureaucrat standing between you and the procedure you wish.

If your insurance provider refuses a request, you may purchase same out of your own pocket.

We are not assured that it will remain thus under the Obamunist plan.

The case of the 99 yr-old who got a pacemaker is a case in point.

In the majority of provinces in Canada one may not purchase their own healthcare. That is the handwriting on the wall.

 

[EriktheRed]

"I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law."

So we're supposed to be taking seriously the words of a columnist who's channeling Gov. Mooseburgers in a RW rag?

I got chills when I read this!

You get chills from the Weekly World News, too.